Nah bro, it seems you are the one becoming lowing. Let's understand why.
Dilbert_X wrote:
You're turning into lowing.
You can use a weapon defensively.
And according to the well-accepted definition, it can be exclusively defensively.
Some otherwise innocuous items can be used defensively but not offensively, eg gas masks, vests, that still doesn't make them weapons.
You can hide behind a wall of sandbags, does that mean bags of sand are now weapons? Trees? Doors?
Otherwise innocuous items? Lay off the opium before you post. What else are bulletproof vests and gas masks used for? Paperweights? They are designed to stop bullets and protect the wearer from poisonous gas. Bags of sand can be used defensively as weapons, but they have a host of civilian applications as well, and weren't designed primarily with the intent to protect military personnel in mind. Mentioning trees and doors, is just pitiful, and a perfect example of the "lowing" debate quality you so vainly attempt to insult. Neither are mobile, neither are really instruments, and neither were "designed" (with the exception of heavy security doors) with the intent to be used to protect people.
'a gun, missile, or sword' Those are all weapons, not everyday items which have the potential to be used defensively.
Bulletproof vests and gas masks are not everyday items either.
Bottom line: The convoy did not have offensive weapons, no firearms, nothing which could realistically have harmed the Israeli commandos if they'd stayed >25m away.
Another pretty argument. I like how you are conceding they had weapons, again. I'm glad your subconscious is more grounded in reality than your conscious thought wants it to be.
It is, naturally, also a great example of your shoddy debating.
You try to make the point they didn't have anything which could harm the Israeli commandos from range, which is right. They didn't. I'll concede that point to you, because I like to acknowledge reality. It's just that you so vehemently are attempting to prove that, while conveniently ignoring the implications, both of which undermine your delusional anti-Israeli bias. Firstly, it doesn't matter whether or not they had weapons that could be used "offensively" against commandos circling in helicopters, because obviously they would wait for the Israelis to board the ship before attacking them. It doesn't look good if you initiate the hostilities before it can be contrived to make your violence against Israel look justified. More importantly, though, is that the simple fact remains an ostensibly peaceful ship providing "humanitarian" aid to the Gazans was carrying weapons. I don't think much more explanation is necessary. Why would a ship intending to get crucial civilian aid to the Gazans have weapons of any kind? Why would they need them unless they were a) intending to engage the Israeli military forces sent to stop them or b) give Hamas weapons?
You see, you are so blinded by your hatred of Israel and your focus on one little issue you think may justify it that you can't see the larger picture. It's the same obduracy and lack of rational perspective that responsible for the condemnation of lowing's posts.
I think you'll find civilians and aid workers do use flak jackets and bullet-proof vests, even gas masks, when they need to - doesn't mean they are carrying weapons and therefore fair game.
Civilians have no use for gas masks or bulletproof vests unless they are in a war-zone, which Gaza currently is not. Vital humanitarian aid to the Gazan people consists of food, generators, water purification systems and the like, not apparel usually appropriate for military soldiers. You aren't going to successfully make the point that bulletproof vests and gas masks constitute essential survival gear for people lacking food, clean water and a functioning power grid.
Aid workers are irrelevant because the ship was supposed to be supply the people of Gaza, not foreigners.
